##PAGE1##

RSA-160-2022 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

127 RSA-160-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.04.2026

Ram Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ram Kumar ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate

for the appellant.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession (Symbolical) by way of pre-emption of agricultural land measuring 9K-16M/suit land as described in the plaint alongwith all rights appurtenant thereto and therein, on payment of

Rs.1,60,000/-, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. The pleaded case of the appellant was that one Bhupal Singh was owner of the suit land. Bhupal Singh executed a Gift Deed in favour of his minor son Mange Ram, as a result of which, Mange Ram became owner of the suit land. However, Defendant/respondent/Ram Kumar had filed a Suit for specific performance against Bhupal Singh which was decreed on 13.12.2007 and Sale Deed No. 230 dated 04.05.2010 was executed in favour of the defendant. Whereas, Appellant has been cultivating the suit land since 1990 and has been paying batai to Bhupal

DIVYANSHI

2026.04.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-160-2022 (O&M) - 2 -

Singh and possessing land as tenant. So, he has a right to pre-empt. It was accordingly contended that plaintiff had superior right to pre-empt the sale in question being tenant and, therefore, he requested defendant to admit his claim. However, to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on

17.11.2010.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Subdivision, Bilaspur had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and

decree dated 25.02.2020. Hence, the present second appeal by plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been primarily non-suited on account of the fact that appellant has not been able to prove that he had been paying batai prior to 1998. It is submitted that appellant has duly produced receipts of payment of batai before 1998 before the learned first Appellate Court by way of additional evidence. Learned counsel submits that in order to prove the case, the appellant/plaintiff examined 7 witnesses and tendered various documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The appellant has exhibited the afÏdavit given by Bhupal Singh executed on dated 09.11.1994, which was of the time prior to the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.08.1998. Similarly, the original receipt dated 10.11.1998, 21.11.1999 and dated 07.05.2001 for the payment of rent were also exhibited by the appellant. Similarly, the plaintiff has exhibited the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by

DIVYANSHI

2026.04.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-160-2022 (O&M) - 3 -

Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Chhachhorouli, regarding correction of Khasra Girdwari, jamabandi for the year 2008-09 and certified copy of Khasra Girdwari, which are sufÏcient to prove the possession of the appellant on the suit land, but the Ld. Lower Courts have failed to appreciate these facts.. However, the receipts regarding payment of rent of dated 20.04.1995, 10.05.1997, 28.04.1998, 24.07.2000, 04.10.2001, 23.04.2002, 12.03.2003, 14.05.2007 & 12.11.2007 are also available with the appellant/plaintiff but could not tender these receipts on the court file as these receipts were misplaced somewhere in the house. After finding these receipts later on when he was searching some other document at his home then the same were given to the counsel who was appearing in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application u